Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

So, Vancouver has no excuse for failing to clean up then.



Vancouver has an operating budget of over $1.2 billion.

Of course they produce less garbage, because how can you measure it if you never pick it up

[WarrenC12]

Just call 311 every time you see an overflowing garbage can. I've done in a few times in my area.

The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, but they do look at 311 stats to see what people are calling about, and adjust accordingly.

[NewfBC]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

Well, then you should educate yourself about what the "greenest city" spends our money on. And then ask yourself whether there is any excuse for failing to provide basic city services, such as proper garbage removal and street cleaning.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Then dont call yourself the greenest city in the world if you can`t even provide basic garbace removal / cleaning programs.

Your right, the city can`t have it both ways. You can`t say you want to move away from a resource based economy and focus more on tourism without at least keeping your tourist areas clean in a modern industrialized city.

And actually, despite having a dry climate, the Okanagan has plenty of water. The Okanagan valley lakes are massive resevoirs and have never been at threat of running low. This is actually one of the largest advantages of the Okanagan that has allowed agriculture to be so stable.

People have to know the difference between a dry climate and an area with water supply deficits. The Okanagan is dry, but it has a massive constant water supply.

And yes, dontown Vancouver is larger than downtown Kelowna, but Vancouver is also far more dense than Kelowna (less surface area per person to clean) and has a much larger tax base for such services.

People on here trying to make excuses for this problem are the problem with Vancouver. Is it really that hard to admit that Vancouver can be dropping the ball on this very basic issue? And can they not admit that maybe Vision should focus more on this issue? The fact that this problem has gotten worse in recent years displays that propoer waste management can be done! (as a better job was being done before).

This is why I have never "loved" a political party, because when you reach that point you become unable to critique them on any issue and your area suffers for it.

Also there are many other cleaning techniques besides power washing (power washing itself is no problem regarding water issues for the vast majority of the time in Vancouver any way).

How are garbage removal and 'being green' related?

Ron.

[VanK]

Bottom line. Overflowing street garbage cans in Downtown Vancouver is seen daily & is an eye sore. How hard is it to figure out a solution to that? Either pick up more often or introduce larger bins. How does the Mayor keep ignoring this? His priorities are somewhere else. Not enough funds? Then re-allocate funds instead of other bs-green initiatives.

Also does any one else have a problem with Vision allocating the majority of CAC money to affordable housing / below market rental housing? Doesn't CAC stand for Community Amenity Contribution? How is that an amenity contribution? A community amenity contribution should be in the form of more parks, community centres, libraries etc etc.. not spending the bulk of the money on more social housing.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VanK

Also does any one else have a problem with Vision allocating the majority of CAC money to affordable housing / below market rental housing? Doesn't CAC stand for Community Amenity Contribution? How is that an amenity contribution? A community amenity contribution should be in the form of more parks, community centres, libraries etc etc.. not spending the bulk of the money on more social housing.

Parks, day-cares, and community centres are all being built and/or included in new developments. If you'd care to show some numbers and examples we can have a conversation on it.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by NewfBC

How are garbage removal and 'being green' related?

Ron.

Of course it's related. Nobody associates pollution with being green. People associate "3rd world" with pollution/garbage in the city.

Originally Posted by csbvan

Also it isn't a good comparison. Vancouver has a much larger, more dense population concentrated in its downtown core and legions more tourists. Kelowna's downtown has few residents and a fraction of the foot traffic per square foot.

According to your logic, downtown Vancouver should be even cleaner than smaller and less dense cities like Kelowna. A denser area with more tax and business dollars at work, and with a much smaller littering area per person, should be able to make garbage pick-up and cleaning all the more easy and less costly, unless tax dollars has been inefficiently spent, like the installation of expensive artwork at obscure areas and attempts to tear down vital infrastructure links.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Just call 311 every time you see an overflowing garbage can. I've done in a few times in my area.
The wheels of bureaucracy turn slowly, but they do look at 311 stats to see what people are calling about, and adjust accordingly.

The stats posted by Jlousa have already shown that there has been a 32% increase in the number of calls to 311. However, the City is still saying they have NO MONEY for more garbage cans and pick-ups, so obviously, contrary to what you just stated, they are ignoring the stats. Their priorities right now are all skewed towards the removal of the viaducts. Somehow $200mil removing vital roadways is more important than providing vital services to the residents.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Parks, day-cares, and community centres are all being built and/or included in new developments. If you'd care to show some numbers and examples we can have a conversation on it.

Here's some:

A report to council last May revealed that the city had approved 44 applications for additional density in 2012, resulting in 2.4 million square feet of additional density.

According to the report, $68 million in benefits were obtained by council, with $59.4 million allocated in 2012.

The largest portion, 38 percent, went to heritage preservation, with another 29 percent going to affordable housing, resulting in 1,011 market-rental units.

Of the remainder, 22 percent went to community facilities and 11 percent to parks and open space. - Georgia Straight

In 2012, CACs paid $23 million for heritage preservation, $17 million for affordable housing, $13 million for community facilities and $7 million for parks and public art. In addition, the city approved six projects in 2012 that will lead to the construction of 1,011 units of secured market rental housing in lieu of paying CACs, the report states. - Vancouver Sun

But the best example is the Oakridge Transit Centre Policy Statement - Dated September 30, 2015. The document for the future Translink rezoning shows over $80 million in CAC/DCL money to be spent on affordable housing and a combined $10 million for parks and open spaces & Child care. Oh and a $0.00 on "no additional community facilities are contemplated on site"

Public Amenity Category Estimated Costs Potential Funding Sources
Affordable housing $80M+ CAC, DCL, Strategic Partnership
Childcare (0-5 years old) $6M CAC, DCL
Parks and open spaces $4M CAC, DCL
Transportation
- new streets & lanes on OTC site
TBD Requirement of development
– off-site improvements $2M Requirement of development, DCL,
CAC
Utilities TBD Requirement of development
Overall $92+M

Just one of the many many examples.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VanK

According to the report, $68 million in benefits were obtained by council, with $59.4 million allocated in 2012.

The largest portion, 38 percent, went to heritage preservation, with another 29 percent going to affordable housing, resulting in 1,011 market-rental units.

Of the remainder, 22 percent went to community facilities and 11 percent to parks and open space.[/I] - Georgia Straight

I'd argue heritage preservation is getting too much money. 29% to affordable housing sounds fine to me.

[Vin]

If they want to make homelessness disappear downtown, just start a new bylaw by making sleeping in public places illegal (jail or shelter, you pick). Spend the money they are spending on affordable housing on improving shelters, complete with personal cubicles/lockers, 24-hour security, and strict re-hab programmes. Then the City can employ these people once they clean up. Homelessness will become history. We need people with strong backbones to make this work, not those wishy-washy bureacrats who can't set their priorities straight.

Building more affordable housing only encourages more folks to be homeless.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd argue heritage preservation is getting too much money. 29% to affordable housing sounds fine to me.

Not sure what your thoughts are on $80 million of $92 million being spent on Affordable Housing. That's 87%.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

If they want to make homelessness disappear downtown, just start a new bylaw by making sleeping in public places illegal (jail or shelter, you pick). Spend the money they are spending on affordable housing on improving shelters, complete with personal cubicles/lockers, 24-hour security, and strict re-hab programmes. Then the City can employ these people once they clean up. Homelessness will become history. We need people with strong backbones to make this work, not those wishy-washy bureacrats who can't set their priorities straight.

Building more affordable housing only encourages more folks to be homeless.

Laws against pan handling and sleeping outdoors have been tried. They've been defeated in court thanks to Pivot and other groups that love to spend tax dollars.

Just look at Abbotsford and Victoria. You can't stop people from camping in public parks...

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VanK

Not sure what your thoughts are on $80 million of $92 million being spent on Affordable Housing. That's 87%.

That's one project, I prefer to look at the overall numbers you posted for an entire year.

[Denscity]

Late to the conversation but for the record New York and Toronto pile all their garbage out front of their stores for pickup. They don't have alleys.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Late to the conversation but for the record New York and Toronto pile all their garbage out front of their stores for pickup. They don't have alleys.

I think that's because they don't have alleys anymore though, right?

Being in Manhattan in the summer is not a pleasant experience.

[VanK]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's one project, I prefer to look at the overall numbers you posted for an entire year.

That's not just one project. that's just the latest project. that's the direction of Vision & their team. mis-directed funds imo.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Laws against pan handling and sleeping outdoors have been tried. They've been defeated in court thanks to Pivot and other groups that love to spend tax dollars.

Just look at Abbotsford and Victoria. You can't stop people from camping in public parks...

Again sadly the vocal minority ( I would assume ) wins.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Vin

If they want to make homelessness disappear downtown, just start a new bylaw by making sleeping in public places illegal (jail or shelter, you pick). Spend the money they are spending on affordable housing on improving shelters, complete with personal cubicles/lockers, 24-hour security, and strict re-hab programmes. Then the City can employ these people once they clean up. Homelessness will become history. We need people with strong backbones to make this work, not those wishy-washy bureacrats who can't set their priorities straight.

Building more affordable housing only encourages more folks to be homeless.

Are you for real?

Do you honestly, genuinely believe what you wrote? If that is satire, it is both well written and on point at purloining the narrative that believes harsher laws and punishment are all that stand between present conditions and society that is free of the vexing interrelationship between homelessness, drug addiction, mental illness, and poverty.

The most current scholarly, peer-reviewed, and broadly cited research stacks up solidly in favour of the net benefit to society being a Housing-First approach, as opposed to your law and order and temporary housing approach.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/1/2/e000323.full

More than 2:1 savings of public resources were realized using the housing-first model versus the conventional shelter, police, emergency services model. This was a randomized, controlled, 5 Canadian city study with sufficient funding and scientific rigor to be considered actionable for policy-making.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Just look at Abbotsford and Victoria. You can't stop people from camping in public parks...

Privatize the parks and then you won't have that problem. The "campers" would be trespassing.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Are you for real?

Do you honestly, genuinely believe what you wrote? If that is satire, it is both well written and on point at purloining the narrative that believes harsher laws and punishment are all that stand between present conditions and society that is free of the vexing interrelationship between homelessness, drug addiction, mental illness, and poverty.

The most current scholarly, peer-reviewed, and broadly cited research stacks up solidly in favour of the net benefit to society being a Housing-First approach, as opposed to your law and order and temporary housing approach.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/1/2/e000323.full

More than 2:1 savings of public resources were realized using the housing-first model versus the conventional shelter, police, emergency services model. This was a randomized, controlled, 5 Canadian city study with sufficient funding and scientific rigor to be considered actionable for policy-making.

Oh yes I am for real, as real as the increasing number of homeless folks on the streets despite more social housing being built.

I would sure love to see that "current scholarly, peer-reviewed, and broadly cited research" that you mentioned. I would also love to see how 2:1 savings of public resources can be achieved.

It has been decades since we've been using the "soft approach" and it is obviously not working. What makes you so sure that using harsher law and order, coupled with temporary housing and re-hap, won't work?

[NewWester]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

Are you for real?

Do you honestly, genuinely believe what you wrote? If that is satire, it is both well written and on point at purloining the narrative that believes harsher laws and punishment are all that stand between present conditions and society that is free of the vexing interrelationship between homelessness, drug addiction, mental illness, and poverty.

The most current scholarly, peer-reviewed, and broadly cited research stacks up solidly in favour of the net benefit to society being a Housing-First approach, as opposed to your law and order and temporary housing approach.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/1/2/e000323.full

More than 2:1 savings of public resources were realized using the housing-first model versus the conventional shelter, police, emergency services model. This was a randomized, controlled, 5 Canadian city study with sufficient funding and scientific rigor to be considered actionable for policy-making.

I decided to stop reading their trolling a while ago, and it's made the forum eminently more enjoyable.